Executing Search Warrants - Alameda County District Attorney's Office

attempt to plan things out is a factor that is highly relevant in determining the overall
reasonableness of their conduct. 2
Entry strategy
There are no rigid rules that must be followed when entering. 3 Instead, the courts
require only that officers enter in a reasonable manner with due regard for the safety of
everyone, and the need to prevent the occupants from destroying evidence or otherwise
sabotaging the search. 4
KNOCK-NOTICE: Officers must plan on complying with the knock-notice
requirements unless they reasonably believe that compliance will be excused for good
cause. As noted, knock-notice is covered in the accompanying article.
DAMAGING PROPERTY: Planning should include a procedure for making a forced
entry if need be. 5 As a general rule, a forced entry is permissible if it was reasonably
necessary. In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, “[L]aw officers constitutionally may
break and enter to execute a search warrant where such entry is the only means by which
the warrant effectively may be executed.” 6
FLASHBANGS: If officers reasonably believe that armed resistance or destruction of
evidence is likely, they may consider using flashbangs when making entry, especially
before making a no-knock entry. Because officers have been using good judgment in
determining when and how to use flashbangs, court authorization is not required.
For example, in Langford v. Superior Court, 7 the California Supreme Court refused
to require the LAPD to obtain court authorization because, (1) the department had
reduced the explosive power of its flashbangs to minimize the risk of injury, (2) the
department prohibited the use of flashbangs unless officers could see fully into the
targeted room before tossing the flashbang inside, and (3) officers were required to
obtain authorization from a police administrative panel which gave its approval only if it
determined that flashbangs were the safest means of making a forcible entry.
MOTORIZED BATTERING RAMS: Using a motorized battering ram to get inside is
highly dangerous because, among other things, it may cause a fire by rupturing electrical
or gas lines. It might even cause the building to collapse. Consequently, motorized
battering rams may be used only if, (1) the issuing judge authorized it; and (2) when the
ram was utilized, officers reasonably believed that evidence inside the premises was
presently being destroyed, or there was an immediate threat of resistance from the
occupants which posed a serious danger to officers. 8
Other pre-search issues
2 See, for example, U.S. v. Heldt (D.C. Cir. 1981) 668 F.2d 1238, 1261-2.
3 See Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) 514 US 927, 934.
4 See Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) 514 US 927, 934 [“(W)e have little doubt that the Framers of the
Fourth Amendment thought that the method of an officer’s entry into a dwelling was among the
factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure.”].
5 See United States v. Banks (2003) 540 US __ [“Since most people keep their doors locked,
entering without knocking will normally do some damage”].
6 Dalia v. United States (1979) 441 US 238, 247. ALSO SEE United States v. Ramirez (1998) 523
US 65, 71 [“Excessive or unnecessary destruction of property in the course of a search may violate
the Fourth Amendment, even though the entry itself is lawful.”]; United States v. Banks (2003)
540 US __ [“(P)olice in exigent circumstances may damage premises so far as necessary for a noknock
entrance without demonstrating the suspected risk in any more detail than the law
demands for an unannounced intrusion simply by lifting the latch.”].
7 (1987) 43 Cal.3d 21.
8 See Langford v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 21, 29-32.
2